huey_m

Pretty sure reddit uses some algorithmic stuff to push threads, no? If you jump all over a bullshit political post, for example, doesn’t that help push it into ‘hot’ or whatever? (Honestly asking, been off reddit for years at this point).

Lemmy/piefed/etc might be less prone to it though, that’s fair, though I’ve so far run into less outright propagandistic stuff here so far… might’ve just been lucky on that front.

Not sure arguing with them really does either. I think this was true in simple chronological message boards, but anything that boosts content due to engagement is just going to make it worse…

We all think we’re not that guy. Especially that guy.

The line between acknowledging an unpleasant reality exists and submersing yourself in an unpleasant reality really isn’t all that fine in my experience.

I’ve heard the argument that if you aren’t pirating via torrent but simply downloading a file (no seeding), there really aren’t any damages that can be claimed aside from the price of the thing you’ve pirated, hence completely not worth any action. The danger is if you’re uploading stuff you can be on the hook based on the number of downloads of that file.

No idea if that’s true, though it sounds reasonable. Thankfully, I’m in a country that could not give less of a shit about piracy… one of the few upsides here lol.

I don’t think that’s what’s meant. That would be the right interpretation if we were talking about a naturally emerging issue… the contention here would be this is a purposefully pushed culture war by those in power to distract from attacking the systems keeping them in power. That doesn’t put any blame on the victim, it’s just a statement of (alleged, though I agree with) fact that its purpose is to keep the masses fighting over cultural issues that ultimately aren’t as important to those in power as taxation, labor rights, ownership of production, etc.

It doesn’t suggest we’re wrong for fighting back. It’s suggesting that the aggressors are being manipulated by higher powers into fighting culture wars instead of looking at their material conditions a little too closely…

Says who? I’ve certainly argued with many that would use it in exactly that sense. They argue things like the FDA and EPA aren’t necessary because markets will self regulate due to losing customers if their actions are antithetical to what society wants (I’ve seen the same argument regarding why civil rights wasn’t necessary and that the market would drive racists out of business, despite years of… that not happening).

Definitely arguable whether libertarians are reasonable or not, but they absolutely do use it in this way. I know because I both argue with them and unfortunately I’m a recovering libertarian myself.

This entire thread is so bizarre. People pick the oddest hills to die on sometimes…

Jury nullification? Never heard of her!

I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting “nearly a third” from.

Private aviation is 2% you said. Air conditioning is 7%. That’s between 1/3 and 1/4. And that’s for a frivolity vs a thing that measurably reduces deaths.

You suggest meat, but livestock is about 4.2% of US emissions.

This number doesn’t cover the actual impact though as it doesn’t account for imports, opportunity cost of land, or the amount of agriculture necessary to support that livestock. As I recall from my ecology days, only about ~10% of energy makes it to the next step in the food chain. So you need a much larger amount of land, energy, and water to grow crops in addition to direct emissions from livestock industry for the same calories.

we absolutely should criticise people for eating meat

Minor point of contention, but no; I’m suggesting we should encourage people to eat less meat.

but absolutely shouldn’t criticise people for using AC

The difference being very, very few people need meat to live, certainly not more than one a week or so barring some specific medical conditions. Much of the US experiences summers where 40C is normal and 45+C isn’t abnormal. It is literally a necessity in much of the US unless you’re just willing to accept a lot of extra deaths due to heat.

And even where it isn’t strictly necessary for health reasons, we’re talking hot enough to be extremely uncomfortable; I’m not going to browbeat people for using AC in that kind of heat while we’re literally building data centers that are using diesel generators and allowing various much more frivolous use of electricity.

It’s not like this is purely Americans Americanning with overconsumption either; southern Europe sees almost ubiquitous use of AC for the same reasons. It varies from actually dangerous to bloody miserable without it.

Do we expect northerners to not use any heating until wearing their parka indoors is no longer effective? Or can we afford some degree of comfort to the unwashed masses?

That doesn’t make sense to me given that, where I live (not in the US), AC is definitely not necessary for most people at home.

With respect, this may be why you’re not treating this with the seriousness it deserves and see it as “not willing to be a bit sweaty”. I come from a place where, even before the kind of climate change we’re seeing today, a week or more of 45C weather wasn’t unusual, 40C was very normal, and deaths from heat stroke happened every year. That’s a big chunk of the US. Obviously, in places like San Francisco, air conditioning is much less ubiquitous and it isn’t unusual at all to have as home without it.

Look, I’m starting to be over this conversation if I’m being honest, so I’ll sum it up as such: AC use is less frivolous than you seemed to be implying and is a necessity in many places, witnessed by Europe going through a bit of a crisis with heat deaths as we catch up and change our culture to adapt to a new climate reality. Even where it isn’t strictly necessary, it is often required for any level of comfort. Considering that, the portion of energy it uses is relatively small; the other things I’ve listed are almost purely frivolities. They simply aren’t necessary in all but the rarest circumstances (remote Alaskans needing private planes, some medical conditions requiring more meat consumption, etc). If the energy use of AC was much higher, I might be with you, but telling people they need to live in misery when there are bigger fish to fry… no.

Remember, my whole premise here is mass cultural changes are relatively ineffective… I cited meat eating culture changing as one of the few that are somewhat, not as a keystone or anything (and again, there are reasons that 7% isn’t comparable to 4.5%… the latter isn’t accounting for a lot of factors that hide its true impact and the former has at least some % of truly necessary use baked into it). It would be far more effective to push systemic change like eliminating fossil fuels for energy production entirely, as electricity production is still one of the biggest emitters. It would be far more effective to work to reduce private auto use, especially for solo trips, and more conversion into electric vehicles powered by non emitting sources. We have better solutions that don’t require misery or death from the masses.

yet flying accounts for 4% of global emissions, and private aircraft (so, little Cessnas as well as private jets) account for under 2% of that.

So in other words, the unnecessary actions of a very, very limited few alone consume nearly a third of the entire country’s use of a pretty basic comfort.

I see this as rather damning if I’m being honest.

But the fact is that we can’t afford to wait for the ultra-rich

No, the fact is reducing a portion of 7% of energy use (because again, we’re excluding health reasons and such which are ever more relevant in 40+C summers) will not have any noticeable impact on climate change. It just won’t. And let’s keep in mind this is in the shadow of many deaths here in Europe this summer… nah man, we just do not share the same principles here, I flat out disagree that’s in any way a good take.

There are some cultural changes that can make a big impact; if we convinced most people in the industrial world to only eat meat once a week or go vegetarian entirely, this would definitely make a large impact. AC use will not. For the most part, systemic change is the only thing getting us out of this. And yes, our odds of accomplishing it don’t look good… you not using AC in extremely hot weather will have no impact on that outcome at all, not measurably anyway.

Of course reducing energy consumption is always nice, but

then you deserve criticism.

Nah, this is the thing. This is pushing off responsibility for huge corporate energy consumption onto consumers. Even in very AC heavy America, it accounts for something like 7% of energy use. Imo, fuck telling people to just deal with the heat over 7% of energy use while private jets are allowed to flit around and data centers are gobbling up power, often very energy inefficiently. It’s a comparative drop in the bucket.

You’re doing the thing the comic is making fun of here.

“Just don’t use AC (during a heat wave killing thousands) and you can save the Earth!” (2026)

In fairness, that could be said of some of the know-it-all summaries as well. 😅

Your grandad’s AI summary, if you will.

rather than addressing anything I’ve actually said

Except you’ve done exactly this in another thread and then whined about people trying to control you when called out on it and told you won’t be engaged with. So nice, much weird.

Edit: the silent downvote says it all, really.

Ah, okay, so it was an actual effort to sidestep criticism, and now you’re stamping your feet because I didn’t let you shift the argument.

Also very telling in this discussion that you interpret the choice of others to not allow you to manipulate them as controlling you.

Do you have any actual defense or can we just take this bit of ad hom as a tacit admission you’re too embarrassed you’ve been caught in a bad argument to respond to it?

If you go back and reread this exchange, this is actually an entirely separate discussion. You might be confusing me for someone else… I made no comments on anyone’s agency or even the morality of this arrangement at all.

I made a narrow criticism, and I can’t move on to a discussion about the actual morality of the scenario if you’re not addressing that critique first, because then it acts to sidestep my criticism: I said that “either this is legal or it isn’t” in response to public outrage is not a valid argument here because legality and public acceptance of behavior often do not align (and provided some examples)… a thing can be legal or “legitimate” and still the subject of wide public criticism. Correct? Is a person’s choice to drink themselves to death not a legitimate choice? Is it invalid? Does society have to accept it even if they don’t think it should be illegal?

We can discuss the actual scenario, but not before addressing this first.

What is your point here, though? I don’t think anybody is suggesting this be codified. You seem to be taking issue with people reacting negatively to this, and your response to that was “well, it’s legal”. I’m just pointing out this argument makes no sense to the point of being a non sequitur; society frowns on all sorts of legal activities that will get you shunned by most in it.

We could, in fact, just use your own argument here: “either social punishment for behavior is legal or it isn’t.” So if it’s legal, you have no room to be here complaining about it, right? Isn’t that what you established?

There are plenty of things you have a right to do and are legal but most of well adjusted society find immoral or at least distasteful.

It’s legal to drink yourself to death, it’s pretty frowned upon to be a drunkard like that, though. It’s legal to walk through the streets preaching the gospel of white nationalism… most would find it abhorrent, though.

In a liberal society (small l) rights to do things often extend beyond what society finds acceptable. This means you’re entitled to do it by law, but you aren’t entitled to social acceptance.